uima-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Lally <ala...@alum.rpi.edu>
Subject Re: Rework of resultSpecification impl
Date Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:38:11 GMT
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Marshall Schor <msa@schor.com> wrote:

>  While trying to address the issue that resulted in re-opening
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-1840
>
> I've discovered several corner cases where the impl may not be doing the
> right thing.
>
> Here's one:
>
> ResultSpec has typeXXX:featYYY
>
> type system has subtype of typeXXX, call it typeXXXsub
>
> In this case, it seems to me that containsFeature(typeXXXsub:featYYY)
> should return true, but I think it will return false in our current impl.
>

Returning true seems correct to me.



> ========
>
> Another case:
>
> ResultSpec has typeXXX, allFeatures
>
> In this case, it seem also that containsFeature(typeXXXsub:featYYY) could
> return true, but I can also see an argument where it would not.
>
> Argument for returning true: the designation of allFeatures for typeXXX is
> thought to mean all features for this type, and all features for any
> subtypes, including those features introduced only in the subtypes.
>
> Argument for returning false: the designation of allFeatures for typeXXX is
> thought to mean all features just of this type. If subtypes introduce
> additional features, those are not covered by this specification.
>
> This may be a nit, which no one is (currently) using, but I'd like to have
> a clear definition for it and make the impl conform.
>

I vote for the latter.  True should be returned only if featYYY is defined
in typeXXX.

-Adam

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message